[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 25 Apr 2018 19:36:21 +0900
From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-kernel@...ove.SAKURA.ne.jp>
To: keescook@...omium.org, serge@...lyn.com
Cc: tycho@...ho.ws, ebiggers3@...il.com, dhowells@...hat.com,
keyrings@...r.kernel.org, linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com,
jmorris@...ei.org, Jason@...c4.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] big key: get rid of stack array allocation
Kees Cook wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 12:58 PM, Serge E. Hallyn <serge@...lyn.com> wrote:
> > Quoting Tycho Andersen (tycho@...ho.ws):
> >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 11:46:38PM +0900, Tetsuo Handa wrote:
> >> > Tycho Andersen wrote:
> >> > > > > + if (unlikely(crypto_aead_ivsize(big_key_aead) != GCM_AES_IV_SIZE)) {
> >> > > > > + WARN(1, "big key algorithm changed?");
> >> >
> >> > Please avoid using WARN() WARN_ON() etc.
> >> > syzbot would catch it and panic() due to panic_on_warn == 1.
> >>
> >> But it is really a programming bug in this case (and it seems better
> >> than BUG()...). Isn't this exactly the sort of case we want to catch?
> >>
> >> Tycho
> >
> > Right - is there a url to some discussion about this? Because not
> > using WARN when WARN should be used, because it troubles a bot, seems
> > the wrong solution. If this *is* what's been agreed upon, then
> > what is the new recommended thing to do here?
>
> BUG() is basically supposed to never be used, as decreed by Linus.
> WARN() here is entirely correct: if we encounter a case where
> crypto_aead_ivsize(big_key_aead) != GCM_AES_IV_SIZE is not true, we
> run the risk of stack memory corruption. If this is an EXPECTED
> failure case, then okay, drop the WARN() but we have to keep the
> -EINVAL.
big_key_init() is __init function of built-in module which will be called
only once upon boot, isn't it? Then, there is no point to continue after
WARN(); BUG() is better here.
Moreover, if this is meant for sanity check in case something went wrong
(e.g. memory corruption), it is better to check at run time like
diff --git a/security/keys/big_key.c b/security/keys/big_key.c
index 9336237..bca04f2 100644
--- a/security/keys/big_key.c
+++ b/security/keys/big_key.c
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
#include <keys/user-type.h>
#include <keys/big_key-type.h>
#include <crypto/aead.h>
+#include <crypto/gcm.h>
struct big_key_buf {
unsigned int nr_pages;
@@ -109,7 +110,12 @@ static int big_key_crypt(enum big_key_op op, struct big_key_buf *buf, size_t dat
* an .update function, so there's no chance we'll wind up reusing the
* key to encrypt updated data. Simply put: one key, one encryption.
*/
- u8 zero_nonce[crypto_aead_ivsize(big_key_aead)];
+ u8 zero_nonce[GCM_AES_IV_SIZE];
+
+ if (crypto_aead_ivsize(big_key_aead) != sizeof(zero_nonce)) {
+ pr_err("big key algorithm changed?");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
aead_req = aead_request_alloc(big_key_aead, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!aead_req)
because crypto_aead_ivsize(big_key_aead) == GCM_AES_IV_SIZE is true
unless something goes wrong at run time, isn't it?
Moreover, zero_nonce[] can be "static" if all actions after memory allocation
are guarded by global big_key_aead_lock mutex?
diff --git a/security/keys/big_key.c b/security/keys/big_key.c
index 9336237..1e7d2d1 100644
--- a/security/keys/big_key.c
+++ b/security/keys/big_key.c
@@ -22,6 +22,7 @@
#include <keys/user-type.h>
#include <keys/big_key-type.h>
#include <crypto/aead.h>
+#include <crypto/gcm.h>
struct big_key_buf {
unsigned int nr_pages;
@@ -109,27 +110,28 @@ static int big_key_crypt(enum big_key_op op, struct big_key_buf *buf, size_t dat
* an .update function, so there's no chance we'll wind up reusing the
* key to encrypt updated data. Simply put: one key, one encryption.
*/
- u8 zero_nonce[crypto_aead_ivsize(big_key_aead)];
+ static u8 zero_nonce[GCM_AES_IV_SIZE];
+
+ if (crypto_aead_ivsize(big_key_aead) != sizeof(zero_nonce)) {
+ pr_err("big key algorithm changed?");
+ return -EINVAL;
+ }
aead_req = aead_request_alloc(big_key_aead, GFP_KERNEL);
if (!aead_req)
return -ENOMEM;
+ mutex_lock(&big_key_aead_lock);
memset(zero_nonce, 0, sizeof(zero_nonce));
aead_request_set_crypt(aead_req, buf->sg, buf->sg, datalen, zero_nonce);
aead_request_set_callback(aead_req, CRYPTO_TFM_REQ_MAY_SLEEP, NULL, NULL);
aead_request_set_ad(aead_req, 0);
-
- mutex_lock(&big_key_aead_lock);
- if (crypto_aead_setkey(big_key_aead, key, ENC_KEY_SIZE)) {
+ if (crypto_aead_setkey(big_key_aead, key, ENC_KEY_SIZE))
ret = -EAGAIN;
- goto error;
- }
- if (op == BIG_KEY_ENC)
+ else if (op == BIG_KEY_ENC)
ret = crypto_aead_encrypt(aead_req);
else
ret = crypto_aead_decrypt(aead_req);
-error:
mutex_unlock(&big_key_aead_lock);
aead_request_free(aead_req);
return ret;
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
